Rule 320 Of AP Prison Rules Or Section 57 Of IPC Does Not Limit Quantum Of Life Sentence, Incarceration Is For Remainder Of Convict's Life: AP HC

A Division Bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, while disposing of a writ petition seeking release of a prisoner who was initially awarded death sentence and was later commuted to imprisonment for life, and had served a sentence for 30 years, held,

“It is contended that for the purposes of calculating remission and premature release, the period of sentence of life is 20 years and the prisoner has already served more than that period and would automatically be entitled to such release. This contention has to be rejected on three grounds. Firstly, the rules framed above do not reduce the term of a sentence of imprisonment for life and cannot be relied upon for such a proposition. Secondly, it is only when remission is given under section 432 of Cr.P.C., that the question of premature release can be taken up. Thirdly, Rule 320, even if it were applicable, does not provide for an automatic release, the rule only requires the advisory board to consider the request of the prisoner to give him premature release.”

Facts:

Initially, one S. Chalapathi Rao (“the prisoner”), alongwith one another, was convicted in 1993 of offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 392, 307, 341 and 440 of IPC for robbing passengers of an APSRTC bus in Guntur district, and setting fire to the bus, which resulted in the death of 23 persons, including a six year old girl. While the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Guntur, on 07.09.1995, awarded death penalty as punishment which was affirmed later by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court, the President had commuted the sentence of death to life imprisonment.

The daughter of the prisoner filed a writ petition seeking release of her father from the central prison, Nellore, on the grounds that the prisoner had been in jail since 1993 and had completed roughly 30 years of actual imprisonment. The petitioner stressed on two pertinent issues- the right of the prisoner for grant of parole and his right for remission and release from jail.

The petitioner argued that while the prisoner was never granted regular parole for one month as per his eligibility, he was granted emergency parole on four occasions. Additionally, the prisoner had enrolled himself into various degree courses, which he had completed and had reformed himself. On account of his good behavior, the head of the prison had recommended his release to the government. However, applications of parole submitted by the prisoner were continuously rejected. The petitioner also argued that as per Rule 320(A) of the A.P. Prisoner Rules, 1979, the prisoner was entitled to be released as his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment and the sentence works itself out upon completion of imprisonment for 20 years.

The respondents argued that the prisoner was not entitled to be released as the special remission granted to the life convicted prisoners by the Government applies to prisoners who have been convicted with life imprisonment but not to the prisoners whose death sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment. Even section 432 of CrPC authorises the Government to grant remission to a convict, and as per Section 433(a), the Government may commute a sentence of death for any other punishment provided by the IPC. Section 433(a), however, does not provide for grant of special remission, therefore, the prisoner was not entitled for special remission. Additionally, irrespective of the fact whether remission was permissible or not, it was urged that the conduct of the prisoner had been unsatisfactory and accordingly, he was not entitled to any remission.

Thus, the Court was compelled to address the following issues- (i) what period of incarceration a person sentenced to imprisonment for life has to undergo, (ii) under what provisions of law can a prisoner be granted remission of the period of sentence, (iii) whether an application for remission of sentence should be considered according to the policy at the time of such application or whether the application should be considered in terms of the policy at the time when the prisoner was convicted and sentenced, if such policy is more conducive for his release, (iv) whether a prisoner can be released on the basis of the remission granted under the Rules, and (v) what are the conditions for grant of parole and whether the prisoner would be entitled for such parole?

Findings:

The Court relied on a host of cases, including Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and Ors and Swamy Shraddhananda (2) v. State of Karnataka [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 113], whereby, similar questions as the instant case arose with respect to the length of a sentence. A collective reading of these judgments established that imprisonment for life connotes imprisonment till the end of the life of the convict and Section 57 of IPC does not limit the punishment of imprisonment for life to a term of twenty years. Section 57 is only for calculating fractions of terms of punishment and provides that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for twenty years. Thus, the Court held that a sentence of life means a sentence of incarceration of the prisoner for the remainder of his natural life and neither section 57 of IPC nor Rule 320(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Prison Rules reduce such a sentence of imprisonment.

With respect to the provisions authorising the grant of remission, the Court noted that Rule 320 of the Rules provides for grant of remission and premature release. Additionally, Section 432 of CrPC also provides for grant of remission. Under Rule 320, remission is given as a reward for good conduct and the said period of remission does not assist to reduce the term of life imprisonment. It is only remission, by an order under Section 432 of CrPC, that can reduce the period of incarceration in a sentence of imprisonment for life. In other words, premature release of a prisoner who is suffering a sentence of imprisonment for life, can be done by an order of remission under Section 432 of CrPC.

Additionally, with respect to the proposition of reformation and good behaviour, the Court observed,

“Under Section 432 of Cr.P.C., the Government would also be entitled to consider the question of whether the prisoner has reformed himself and whether the behaviour of the prisoner has shown that he can be released. In the present case, the petitioner contends that the behaviour of the prisoner has been exemplary, while the respondents claim otherwise. These are questions of fact which can be gone into by the authorities, as and when an application, under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. is filed, before the authorities.”

Taking this into consideration, the Court rejected the contention of the petitioner that the prisoner was entitled to automatic release as he had served a period of 30 years of imprisonment.

With respect to the reliance of the petitioner on G.O.Ms. No. 8, which provided an opportunity for prisoners to be released prematurely on account of good behaviour, the Court observed,

“The provisions of the G.O. would not be available to the prisoner as there is a clear bar against considering the cases of prisoners whose sentence of death has been commuted to a sentence of life and to those prisoners, who have been convicted, for the offences against girls, who have not crossed the age of 18. Even otherwise, it is the case of the petitioner, that there was a more liberalised policy of remission and release, available at the time, when the prisoner was sentenced and the subsequent restrictions brought in, through G.O. Ms. No. 8, cannot be applied to the prisoner. In such circumstances, this court need not go any further in applying G.O.Ms.No. 8 to the present case.”

With respect to the conditions for grant of parole and whether the prisoner would be entitled for such parole, the Court held that the authorities would have to reconsider the requests of parole of the prisoner on par with other, similarly situated, prisoners and in light of the guidelines of the State read with the observations of the Supreme Court in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan, which prescribed the policy and guidelines for grant of parole.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition by leaving it open to the prisoner to seek remission and early release under Section 432 of Cr.P.C. The application, thus filed, would be considered according to the policy subsisting when the sentence of death passed against the prisoner was commuted to sentence of imprisonment for life.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.44501 OF 2018

Case Title: S. Swapna v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Date: 09.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order